"When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], 'See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who's strong to defend America at a time of concern.' Well, Senator Clinton is strong," he said. "And she's experienced. And she's tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that's true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that's one of the reasons why I'm supporting her."
Few things irritate me more about prominent DLC types than their tendency to preface virtually everything they propose for Democrats with how that something will help Democrats get elected. They do it all thetime. I know that an election is close, and electability will be a concern for some. Still, it is one thing to say that Bhutto's assassination shows that we need an experienced hawk to defend America, and quite another to say that Bhutto's assassination shows that we need an experienced hawk to defend America because otherwise Republicans will attack us. The former isn't very good, as it consents to a conservative view of foreign policy. However, the later is even worse, since it implies we need to adopt a conservative view of foreign policy in which we don't really believe so that we can accrue more political power. One buys into Republican and conservative frames, while the other buys into Republican and conservative frames while simultaneously making Democrats look like valueless, power hungry politicians who think they can trick the rubes who are the American people. And so, in addition to making Democrats look weak on national security, DLC types like Bayh end up reinforcing a second insidious conservative narrative: that Democrats are a bunch of soulless, liberal elites who think they are better than most of the backward rubes who live in America.
The electability language of the DLC is so colossally bad for Democrats as a whole that it is difficult to think of a less effective way for Democrats to get elected than continuing to utilize said language.